“Watson” wrote: As I explained in my opening post, I’m running for all seven of the positions (one position has been removed from the running). This thread is my official campaign thread for all of my campaigns. Rather than cluttering up the forum with 7 different threads, I figured it would be wiser to simply combine it all into one.

I could understand if discussion of the merits of all candidates were to be contained within one thread for a particular ministerial position; but I fail to see how discussing eight different positions — with multiple issues relevant in their own manner to those specific aspects of site administration, aids in any way the process of selecting the most suitable candidates.

“Watson” wrote: After all, many of the questions I would hope to receive about my past history, qualifications, and abilities, will likely be pertinent to more than one position.

You don’t perceive that different positions will require differing experience, qualities, and ability of the potential candidate? Don’t you think it would be more beneficial to the election process and the community if each of your plans for administering the site’s resources were given a fair individual hearing; rather than cluttering up one thread with totally dissociated discussions?

“saulgoode” wrote: I fail to see how discussing eight different positions — with multiple issues relevant in their own manner to those specific aspects of site administration, aids in any way the process of selecting the most suitable candidates.

I guess it’s simply a difference of opinion. I took time to weigh the two options, and I felt (and still feel) that this option is cleaner and easier to follow (both for me, and for the voters).

“saulgoode” wrote: [quote=”Watson”]After all, many of the questions I would hope to receive about my past history, qualifications, and abilities, will likely be pertinent to more than one position.

You don’t perceive that different positions will require differing experience, qualities, and ability of the potential candidate? [/quote]
Of course. I said “many of the questions,” not “all of the questions.” I absolutely understand that each position has its own unique challenges that I need to address.

“saulgoode” wrote: Don’t you think it would be more beneficial to the election process and the community if each of your plans for administering the site’s resources were given a fair individual hearing; rather than cluttering up one thread with totally dissociated discussions?

I believe that I will be able to keep it easy to follow. Should it become difficult and cluttered, I will certainly consider breaking up the topic for the sake of the voters. For now, as I stated above, I believe it will work.

I do wish that more people would ask specific questions regarding certain positions, or even ask me to address their misgivings about me (which I’m sure some will have). That’s what the thread is for, and I’d like to see more of it.

I like your “get-it done” attitude, despite your occasional flippancy towards some other candidates. I don’t agree with all of your campaigning tactics, and would like to see a little more integrity – but I am very glad to see you’ve taken the time to put a lot of thought into it. Devotion, and commitment to get the job done is essential to any staff position.

And…running for all the available positions? That takes some courage! I thought this was a joke at first, but after reading through some, and looking through other threads – I think I see what you’re doing.

I like how you’re leaving it up to supporters to figure out what position you’re best suited for. Good luck in the elections!

“Watson” wrote: [quote=”saulgoode”]I fail to see how discussing eight different positions — with multiple issues relevant in their own manner to those specific aspects of site administration, aids in any way the process of selecting the most suitable candidates.

I guess it’s simply a difference of opinion. I took time to weigh the two options, and I felt (and still feel) that this option is cleaner and easier to follow (both for me, and for the voters). [/quote]

Indeed, a difference of opinion and of course it will be easier for you to follow but it is hardly conducive to a productive discussion of the separate issues. If a voter wishes to determine your commentary with regards to a particular position, it is not easier for them to discern that information when it is scattered amongst seven unrelated topics. Your stance in this matter alone calls into question your judgment in how best to promote productive discussion taking place in the forums.

Nevertheless, having dismissed your suitability for the position of Minister of Discussion, I shall move on.

Your platform statement for the post of Minister of Information states:

I think this department is being run very well right now. The future film changes like clockwork, and announcements are pertinent and regular. Therefore, I’d like to emulate my plan for the Minister of Film Rating position, and say that if I win, I will keep the current minister, KG, and his under-ministers doing what they’re doing now.

Certainly the coverage of the ongoings of your BAMPA awards has been quite admirable, and I am in no way opposed to that — though the laundry list format of the presentation is not very aesthetic and serves to reduce access to the other News stories. However, the News page has left me quite unenlightened about other recent events that have transpired, or that are transpiring, which should be of critical interest to the community.

The IDEA Contest: yes, it was announced by Trillspots three months ago; but there has been no notification of a change in the deadline which occurred, nor any update on the status of the entries being shown at BrickWorld.

IDEA Logo Contest: An official Brickfilms contest arranged by the Minister of Film Contests specifically intended as a promotion for the aforementioned IDEA Contest. The News page provided no mention of the Contest being held, nor any announcement of the eventual result.

The Nadine & Charlie Music Video Contest: Another brickfilming contest which, while not initiated by Brickfilms, the Minister of Film Contests saw fit to present to the community in the Official Contests forum. The News page never mentioned the contest, no notification of its existence, nor an eventual postponement of the deadline.

The TTC Contest: Yes, this was a contest that I was heavily involved with; but notwithstanding, like the N&C Contest, it also was deemed fit for the Brickfilms Official Contests forum and, all subjectivity aside, the participants of this contest (and the Brickfilms community at large) would have been well-served to have seen mention of it on the News page.

The Steinerei Film Festival & Contest: While this event was not closely affiliated with Brickfilms and I can’t overly criticize its lack of mention on the News page from the aspect of promoting the interests of Brickfilms, it was a major brickfilming event which should be of great interest to the members of our community.

There are other events (such as The Nerd Parade Music Video Contest (a brickfilming contest offering over $150 in prizes to the winners) & the FreeLUG Summer Meet (a LEGO festival in France with a showcase of brickfilms in its schedule) which should be of interest to our community and yet receive no mention on the News page.

I think that your complete satisfaction with current administration of the News page and your intent to maintain the status quo is ample indication of your lack of recognition that your own interests run contrary to those of the community and an inability to place the interests of the community first.

“saulgoode” wrote: If a voter wishes to determine your commentary with regards to a particular position, it is not easier for them to discern that information when it is scattered amongst seven unrelated topics.

I agree with you completely. That’s why I didn’t scatter it among seven topics. I’m glad you came around to my point of view.

“saulgoode” wrote: Your stance in this matter alone calls into question your judgment in how best to promote productive discussion taking place in the forums.

Nevertheless, having dismissed your suitability for the position of Minister of Discussion, I shall move on.

The Minister of Discussion, according to RevMen, is supposed to be “in charge of the forums and the chat. Responsibilities include setting standards for proper forums behavior and overseeing all moderators.” Nowhere does he mention that the MoD must act as an editor, shifting and merging and arranging all the discussions in the forum so that they are easier to read. (The closest thing to this would be when a topic must be split – only once it has gotten off-topic – or when a post has been made in the wrong forum and must be moved. Both of these exceptions are quite distinct from the misstep of which you are accusing me).

You make a good point with some of the announcements that were missed on the news page. To be fair to KG, though, he wasn’t given the ability to add news stories until April, and was appointed amidst great confusion. Several stories you listed took place before his appointment, and were the responsibility of the original Minister of Information. The TTC Contest, Nerd Parade Music Video Contest, IDEA Logo Contest, and Nadine and Charlie Contest Announcements were all made prior to that time.

On the other hand, the TTC winners, IDEA Contest deadline change, Nadine and Charlie Deadline change, and Steinerei occurred after his appointment. Steinerei, as you admitted, is a debatable topic, but I think I would have included it, personally. TTC never received very much coverage, and suffered as a result. The winners should have been announced, though, as should the two deadline changes.

The chaos and confusion that occurred mid-way through this term, and the sudden, unexpected appointment lead to some mistakes being made. I think that if KG has the chance to start a fresh, normal term, things will be much smoother.

Nevertheless, having dismissed your suitability for the position of Minister of Discussion…

Was this “dismissal” done internally, for additional motives, or is your whole basis the mere (and not indefensible) fact that Watson created one thread instead of seven?

Ah, good old saulgoode. Among the few that would make an earnest attempt to undermine a campaign whose platform was described by the candidate in words like “I will revel in bribery and flattery”.

I appreciate your recognition of my forthrightness. I also will not deny having a contempt for Watson’s light-mindedness in his approach to this election.

Are you really criticizing me because I dismiss a candidate running some farcical joke of a campaign which seems more intent on parading his acerbic talents and capricious wit than actually improving the operations of this site? Do I really need any “additional motives”?

Every other candidate in this election has put forth a sincere campaign and is trying to contribute to an open discussion of how the site can best be administered. Are they also to be criticized for their earnestness and ridiculed for being too serious?

At this point, there is not a single candidate running in this election whom I would not choose over Watson. Maybe you wish to elect your ministers based on the flippancy and whimsy of their campaigns, I happen to prefer candidates who have more to offer this community.

“saulgoode” wrote: Are you really criticizing me because I dismiss a candidate running some farcical joke of a campaign which seems more intent on parading his acerbic talents and capricious wit than actually improving the operations of this site?

So far, this thread has done more for this site than several ministers have over the last six months.

At least recognize that Watson is having a very positive impact on the elections, perhaps not through his own positions, but by motivating real thought and questions. People should not be content with what we’ve seen from some of our elected (and non-elected) officials this year.

Watson, I recommend you remove ‘Now Endorsed By Ladon!’ from your signature, because not only do I not endorse your ‘I just want the title!’ approach to this election, but because there was no consultation with me, if you win the Minister Film Ratings election you will have no support from me. Therefore, you’re going to have to think of a better platform. Maybe… one that involves you doing the work to earn the title?